This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Numismatics This page is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Numismatics and anything related to its purposes and tasks. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months  WikiProject Numismatics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 18 October 2010.

Somewhere I saw these coins being stacked on spindles for easy counting. The spindle heights would be such that if you stacked a certain number on a given spindle when the stack reached the top you knew how many coins you had. Say 25. I believe I saw this someplace in Manhattan in the 1970s. 73.137.220.200 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen this in Japan, no point doing it with modern tills and coin bags Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen coin trays for change making in Japan but not spindles. I believe I heard the hole in the 5 yen was a nod to historic cash coins used in Japan as well as China but I don't recall for certain. I took the tour of the Osaka Mint twenty years ago but don't have the brochures. Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on Numista as a source? They seem to be user-generated like wiki, but with some review and a higher bar for entry. The database is essentially reviewed by fellow users for accuracy and encourages reporting of errors. But they are not as formally rigorous as other sources. The problem is other sources often dont exist. I was thinking to bring this up on RSN, but here might be a good place to start. My personal view is that they can be considered generally reliable, but other sources are preferred if they exist. We dont have an article on them and previous ones have been deleted. I am going to try to find coverage and use of them by other sources, but havent found much so far. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it depends. I guess the question is that if the information on Numista is sourced from somewhere, why not find that source? But as you've said those sources just don't exist. Numista does seem to require that edits to entries be sourced but it doesn't look like the sources are accessible to regular users (which seems counter-intuitive in my opinion). I think it's probably fine for descriptive information about coins (size, weight, lettering) if it can't be found anywhere else, but I'd avoid it generally. Eman7blue42 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of making an account to dig deeper into this. Or maybe email them about it. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit any evidence to the Numista user in charge of that particular currency when requesting a change to a record, which can include personal photos etc. In case of disputes Numista has a forum that sort of works like a Wikipedia talkpage in terms of dispute resolution, although alongside normal forum casual discussions. CMD (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that Numista is generally reliable for descriptions, legends etc. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Would someone decode the initialism "ASW" at Rupee#Exchange rate, please? And add a line to ASW? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it stands for aggregate silver weight.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which means? net silver content? is there a suitable wikilink to a formal definition? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It stands for actual silver weight. The offline source I have for that is Chester L. Krause and Clifford Mishler, 2005 Standard Catalog of World Coins, 1901-Present, 32nd edition, page XXVIII. It says it is obtained "by multiplying the gross weight of a coin by its known or tested fineness". Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find an article where it would be appropriate to include it as a definition? Is there a list of numismatic terms? (red link, I see, is there anything else?) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of numismatics Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This year I decided to combine two of my interests, coin collecting and reading Wikipedia, into something constructive. I started seriously editing Wikipedia this summer, mainly having been editing pages for US commemorative coins. I am just gonna state some observations I have:

• There is a bias towards covering United States currency, especially regarding commemorative coins. I was surprised when I saw that nearly every single United States commemorative coin program has an article (several of which I have started or expanded), yet somehow not for many commemorative coins outside the US, there is barely a passing mention. Now US coins get a lot more coverage since there are tons of sources available, but clearly articles can be written about non-US commemorative coins (Centennial half-crown, Waitangi crown, 1949 New Zealand crown, Brexit 50p coin, Auto Dollar). I know I should be bold and just start writing articles, but I also do not want to flood the project with articles (likely stubs) that might fit better on a list.
• The coverage of Euro coinage... needs improvement. Outside of the regular coin articles needing some work, 2 euro commemorative coins is way to long, it might be best to split it out between different countries own euro coin pages. Nearly every article for commemorative coins in Europe has not been updated in over a decade. Euro proof sets might be one of the worst articles I have ever seen, and I plan to fix it in the future.
• A lot of sources exist that would be incredible for writing great articles, but are practically inaccessible or very difficult to find. I just know off the top of my head that access to Coin World articles would be amazing for what I'm doing. I have been thinking about creating a list of books, websites, and articles for specific topics (e.g. Mexican Revolutionary coinage and tokens, which I can't find mentioned anywhere on the entire encyclopedia but many sources exist) perhaps stating where it could be found.
• How come we have pages for some individual coin denominations (5 yen coin, Three halfpence (British coin), Dime (United States coin), Nickel (Canadian coin), New Zealand ten-cent coin, Philippine five-peso coin) but not others (Mexican, Colombian, South Korean coinage). Has no one just bothered to make pages for them?
• There are some awesome editors involved in this project, thank you for all the work you've done. Seeing all the FAs and GAs for topics that to me seemed niche are what made me want to get involved in the first place.

I mainly just want to start some discussions about the state of the project in general and ways to improve it. I know there are not lot of people involved, and those who are often have other areas of focus, but I am only really interested in editing numismatic articles so I feel like I'm in a unique position to help this project grow. Let me know what you think about all this. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 20:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the nice words. And welcome.

We have a very limited number of people working on this project. Thus, there are biases, dictated by personal interest and the limitations of the sources that we have or can access. I've done a good part of the work, and my biases (and refs) tend to be in the US and UK areas. Your assistance would be very welcome.

I agree with you, access to CoinWorld would be great to have. I don't know how long ago they have digitized, I doubt it is back to the Early 60s. The ANA digitizing The Numismatist for members has been very helpful. Still, there are publications that we don't have, or have just a limited number of issues. At least we have better access to images than we used to.

Naming practices should accord with general article practices, that is to say, something like three halfpence doesn't need to note that it is a British coin because it is the only three halfpence there is. Something like five pounds (gold coin) doesn't need further diambituation because things like the five pound gold coins issued by various colonies are much less important . There is no reason why we shouldn't have an article on individual denominations of Mexican or Philippine currency, but sourcing is the difficulty. There are inconsistencies but titles are not as important as content.

I'm rambling a bit and I'm not sure I've answered all your comments, but, again, welcome.

Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From what I know every issue of Coin World, as well as a lot of other sources like COINage and Numismatic News, have been digitized by the Newman Numismatic Portal, yet access is restricted. Surely we can find a way for a few of us to get access to them, maybe something can be worked out with the Wikipedia Library. Just a thought. That's all out of my wheelhouse though. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 21:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the options are to use the Wikipedia Library as intermediary or approach the NNP directly. Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]